Changes

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, in now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM). As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homoeroticism or  homoerotic activity will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

The term "homosexual" is a relatively recent one, with it's first know occurrence apparently being in an 1869 pamphlet in the German language, and attributed to native Austrian Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Over time, this term, which was used within the field of personality taxonomy, and which could be used to denote any same gender environment, in now used almost exclusively in regards to sexual attraction and it's activity. This is as yet unsatisfactory, as such use lacks the distinction between nonsexual homosexual social activity, denoted by the term "homosociality," versus same gender love, "homophilia," and which may be romantic, and that of homoeroticism (clinically MSM). As most of this article deals with the sexual practice of homosexuals, the term homoeroticism or  homoerotic activity will usually be used. Sodomy might normally have been, but this originally defined a temple prostitute. ("Sodom" itself is derived from the word "scorch," or "burnt".)

=Texts at Issue=

= Texts at Issue =

   

   

Here let us consider errors of attempts to justify homo eroticism in the Bible, insofar as I am aware of them, of which the main ones may be seen online in Thomas E Schmidt's book <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow%3F+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA32,M1] “Straight or Narrow?” (pp. 30-37)</ref>   

Here let us consider errors of attempts to justify homo eroticism in the Bible, insofar as I am aware of them, of which the main ones may be seen online in Thomas E Schmidt's book <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow%3F+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA32,M1] “Straight or Narrow?” (pp. 30-37)</ref>   

This often begins with seeking to negate Gn. 2:24, in which efforts must be made to negate God's choice to join man and women together as meaning that marriage between opposite genders is the only one sanctioned by God.  

This often begins with seeking to negate Gn. 2:24, in which efforts must be made to negate God's choice to join man and women together as meaning that marriage between opposite genders is the only one sanctioned by God.  

==Genesis and union of man and women==

== Genesis and union of man and women ==

(Gen 2:18-24)  "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

(Gen 2:18-24)  "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that '''the man''' should be '''alone'''; I will make him an '''help meet''' for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but '''for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.''' {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} '''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.''' {23} And Adam said, This is now '''bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman''', because '''she was taken out of Man'''. {24} '''Therefore''' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall '''cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."'

Jesus affirmed this union in Matthew 19, specifically including that it was opposite genders that were joined:  

We see here that the specific cause for creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. Jesus affirmed this union in Matthew 19, specifically including that it was opposite genders that were joined:  

(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''',  And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."'

(Mat 19:4-6)  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them '''male and female''',  And said, For '''this cause''' shall a man leave '''father and 'mother''', and shall cleave to '''his wife''': and '''they twain shall be one flesh'''?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. '''What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."'

We specifically see here that the cause of creating opposite genders was to join them sexually in marriage. In contrast to these explicit declarations, is the idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. The assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions. This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual are implicitly sanctioned, but which is without warrant. What Scripture does reveal is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20).  Women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for the life giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. <ref>Straight & Narrow?; Sexuality from the beginning,  Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>  

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” in Mt. 19:6 is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and it is only this union which is consistently exampled in Scripture, and is based upon the creational foundation of Genesis.  It was women, not another man, that was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with him sexually, in marriage “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage." <ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>

It was women, not another man, who was created out of Adam's side to be at his side, being created from part of man to be uniquely joined together with him sexually, in marriage “The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage.”<ref>Keil and Delitzsch</ref>  

In contrast to the preceding and other explicit and consistent Biblical declarations of who is joined in marriage, is the homosexual proponent's idea that a “man with man” sexual union can be valid. In attempting to negate Gn. 2:24, the assertion is made by some homosexual apologists that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and that this does not exclude same gender unions.<ref>The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage, Mary A. Tolbert</ref> This idea is based upon a prior and extra Biblical assumption that homosexual marriage is implicitly sanctioned in Scripture, and is not explicitly forbidden, but this is shown to be without warrant, and it's logical conclusions untenable. Instead what Scripture reveals is that God uniquely created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, the joining of which is God's declared means of creating sanctioned sexual “oneness,” which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20). Women here and in other places are not only revealed to be supremely and uniquely designed for the life giving purpose of procreation within marriage, but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. And they alone This is perhaps most supremely revealed in the Song of Solomon. In addition, whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between a male and female - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9).  Hereafter the only marriages in the Bible are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists absolutely zero evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. “Indeed, every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and piece of poetry in the Hebrew Bible having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite.”<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage (dealt with later), though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. The attempt to argue that same gender marriage must be allowed since there is no explicit command prohibiting it is readily seen as possessing the same amount of legitimacy as saying that marriage between man and animals, or between man and rocks must be allowed, as these also are not explicitly forbidden. The facts are that they need not be explicitly forbidden, as God clearly, and consistently specifies who is joined together in marriage, and designed them that way, and abundantly confirms only the union between the male and female as sanctified, and unconditionally prohibits men laying with men as with women (Lv. 18:22), which “cleaving” is intractably part of God's description of marriage. 

1 Cor. 11:8,9 explicitly confirms this unique bond,  

1 Cor. 11:1-12 explicitly confirms the unique bond of man and women in marriage, which in every aspect is contrary to a man to man union:

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 'Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''"  

 

 

(1 Cor 11:8,9) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 'Neither was the man created for the woman; but '''the woman for the man.'''"  

    

    

Whenever God gives instructions for sexual bonding it is always between a male and female - even between animals, as seen in Noah's pairing (Gn. 7:9).  Hereafter the only marriages in the Bible,  are between man and women, with the Hebrew and Greek words for wife never denoting a male. In contrast to the abundant confirmation of God's sanction for heterosexual relations, in all of the Bible there exists absolutely zero evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. An attempt is made to make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, though that word is never used for marriage between humans, and there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex. And which story, by God's grace, should be dealt with in it's time.   

Here again it is explicitly stated that the women was created for the man. This hearkens back to Gn. 2:18-24, in which the women was created to be man's “helpmeet”, and as we see beginning in Genesis, by design and decree she is his uniquely compatible and complementary mate, in more ways than just the procreative aspect.

 

The mutual interdependence of the women and the man is next seen in vs. 11-12

 

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  

The “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” (Mt. 19:6) is only specified as the union of the male with his female counterpart, and is consistently exampled as such, and is based upon the creational foundation of Genesis. Thus, contrary to homosexual attempts at eisegesis (2Pet. 3:16), to join Adam (man) with one of his own (or an animal) is contrary to the specific design of God and His definition of what is joined in marriage, with any male with male sexual union being contrary to both principal and precept, to both design and decree. What therefore God has placed (sexually) asunder  — both by explicit creation directive and omission of any evident same gender unions, and commission of injunctions against them — let no man join together.  

To join man with man in contrary to this unique union in marriage between opposite genders, in which both genders hold distinctive roles due to their creation differences, both in position, overall paracletal purpose and procreation.  

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

Jame B. De Young,<ref>Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon,</ref> in “Homosexuality,” writes, “ The creation of humans as male and female (Gn. 1) and the heterosexual union that constitutes marriage (Gn. 2) lie at the at the basis of the rest of Scripture and its comments about sexuality and marriage. A proper understanding of, and submission to, the record of Creation will guide the inquirer to the truth about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Genesis 1 — 3 clearly is foundational to other Bible texts.”

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) .  

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) .  

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3),  as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife (unlike children, when as individual husband is addressed, it is not love your wives, but wife, and as seen above), even this excess, is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and it is they which are uniquely sexually joined in marriage.   

Nor does the fact that polygamous marriages were allowed (even concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf.  2Sam. 20:3),  as while union with more than one wife was allowed, and the New Testament restores that to the original of one wife (unlike children, when as individual husband is addressed, it is not love your wives, but wife, and as seen above), even this excess, is in keeping with the creational design and directive in which the women was created for the man, and it is they which are uniquely sexually joined in marriage.   

Another homosexual argument is that some men are born homosexual, and thus marriage must be allowed for them.<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/NicholasKristofGodAndSex.htm</ref> The premise for this is both unproven, and it's logic is untenable. No sound evidence exists to prove that homosexuals were born that way, though certainly one individual may be more prone to one type of sin that another, but the Biblical fact is that all mankind is born with a proclivity to sin, but which in so way justifies acting it out. (Romans 6, 7; 1John 2:6). The logical end of the homosexual argument is that all innate proclivity to sin justifies acting it out, but God told Cain that he could resist sin. (Gn. 4:7), and commands us to resist sin and overcome it, and shows us how. (Rom. 8; 12)

A more subtle attempt to read allowance of homosexual marriage into the Bible is made by homosexual apologist John J. McNeill <ref>The Church and the Homosexual, Cp. 2</ref> This polemic attempts to  forces marriage under the New Testament to included  homosexuals due to it's lower priority upon procreation, and emphasis upon essential oneness of all races in Christ. (Gal. 3:28)  However, as noted aforetime, the bond of marriage is not simply for procreation, and the women's uniqueness as the helpmeet of the man transcends that aspect (although this is by no means a minor one, and which itself is contrary to same sex unions). And under the New Covenant, marriage is only reaffirmed as the union of opposite genders, with this unique union being evident in their complementary positional differences, which are based upon creational distinctions after the Divine order. Furthermore, just as  under the Old Testament, marriage is dealt with under the New only as being between the man and the women, and rather than long term sexual abstinence,  conjugal relations are actually enjoined  (1Cor. 7:4,5). In addition, while they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection of the just  shall “neither marry, nor are given in marriage"  (Luke 20:35), even the church is metaphorically a female, as it also is based upon marriage in Genesis with it's union of different but complementary genders, purposely made to be so.  

(Eph 5:30-32) "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

==Genesis 19==

==Genesis 19==